A young woman from Sweden posted an anonymous ad on Craigslist. She confidently described herself as exceptionally beautiful, charming, and seductive. In her post, she said she was looking to marry a very wealthy man, specifically someone earning at least $500,000 per year. She also listed a few lifestyle expectations—luxury living, financial security, and a high-status partner.
The post quickly attracted attention, not just because of its blunt honesty, but because it treated marriage almost like a business deal.
Among the many responses, one stood out.
A man replied, identifying himself as a professional investor with an income well above the amount she requested. He said he met all her financial conditions, but wanted to respond from a business and economic perspective.
He explained that, although he could easily afford her lifestyle, marrying her would be a bad investment decision.
Why?
Because, in his view, what she was proposing was not love or partnership, but a transaction:
- She would offer beauty and youth
- He would offer money and financial security
He compared the situation to assets in economics:
- Her beauty, he argued, was a depreciating asset—it would naturally fade with time.
- His wealth, career, and investments were appreciating assets—likely to grow over the years.
He went on to say that in business, no smart investor would permanently commit to an asset that loses value quickly, especially when the other asset continues to increase in worth.
He added that if beauty was her only asset, then the deal would become worse over time. Unlike normal consumer goods, beauty depreciates faster and cannot be repaired, upgraded, or insured against aging.
His conclusion was blunt but calm:
From a purely economic standpoint, it would make more sense to rent such an asset than to buy it outright—meaning casual relationships rather than marriage.
He ended by saying that while her honesty was refreshing, marriage built purely on money-for-beauty logic was unsustainable, and he wished her luck in finding what she was looking for.
0 Comments